Complaints against the police and the public prosecutor’s office – “For me this is a solid judicial scandal”

Last week, lawyer Andreas Noll filed a criminal complaint against the cantonal police and the Basel-Stadt public prosecutor’s office, as well as against their criminal police. The police are said to have illegally used rubber shot in the unauthorized demonstration against a rally by right-wing extremist Pnos in November 2018. The criminal police are said to have manipulated evidence that incriminated the police. The prosecution allegedly used the evidence in court despite their knowledge of the manipulation.

According to Noll, the public and the courts believe that it was the demonstrators who let the violence escalate with projectiles. But if the police acted illegally and only shot to distract the suspect, a self-defense situation should be checked. In addition, it would have to be investigated whether the responsible police officers committed various types of bodily harm.

“The judgments that have already been made can subsequently be challenged with a request for retrial – because of significant new facts or evidence or because of tortious influence on the judgment,” says criminal law expert Mark Pieth. For Noll it is clear: “The judgments for passive violence against civil servants go straight out of the window”. If members of the public prosecutor’s office or the criminal police were found guilty, this would constitute a reason for termination according to the cantonal personnel law, according to the lawyer. He sums up: “For me it is already a real judicial scandal”.

Initially, it took time for the prosecutor to complete their investigations and bring the cases to court. So far, so common. However, there are hours of video material in the case files. During the negotiations, summaries were used as evidence that contained no evidence of an illegal use of funds. It was not until the end of 2020 that snippets made public that questioned the official statements of the police. There are now more incriminating clips, but their significance in the larger context has yet to be checked.

At various points the police refer to earlier statements on the use of rubber shot: At that time, police commander Martin Roth said that the funds would only be used if there was no further progress with dialogue and de-escalation. The public prosecutor’s office confirms, however, that the complaint has been received and that “all necessary and legally correct steps are now being taken” in order to deal with it “independently and openly”. From the authority’s point of view, the image material in question was known to the negotiating parties and the courts and taken into account in the assessment. Regarding the allegations against the public prosecutor’s office, one does not want to anticipate an independent treatment.

Nothing will change for the police for the time being. The public prosecutor’s office is in a complicated situation because it should actually investigate itself. Because this is not ideal anyway, Andreas Noll demands that the investigation be carried out by an extraordinary public prosecutor – i.e. from another canton. “Normally the agency would declare itself biased and outsource the investigation,” explains Mark Pieth. The decision on this is made by the government council, according to the public prosecutor, the search and appointment are made by the Justice and Security Department.